Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Miles]

.

Came across this little gem a bit ago and thought I'd share.




Thoughts?

.

[Miles]

I mean, I know us religious folks aren't as bright as you naturalists are, but we will do our best to try to follow along you guys here.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with the latter part of that statement because your descriptions of the evolutionary process are patently wrong and demonstrate no apparent effort to study the subject to the necessary level of understanding.

I concur and there are a significant number of extremely "bright" naturalists who identify as religious.

But I have to wonder where they go when their religion and the science contradict.

I'd say a few dismiss science out of hand and go right on believing what they need to: The Bible is inerrant, and when science clashes with it science loses. But IMO most religious "bright" naturalists seldom get caught up in fundie religions, and belong to Christian denominations that recognize the value of science even when it clashes with Bible stories.



.

[benchwarmer]

Yes, that's right. That's all we have to go on. The scientists of the world stopped looking any further when they noticed the similar bone structures....

If that's really what you think, I'm not sure there's much hope in having a debate. It's one thing to misunderstand the volumes of science behind evolutionary theory, it's another to willfully ignore it.

Who is ignoring it? Evolutionists are the ones who are constantly babbling about the so called "fossil record"...and what is the fossil record? Pretty much bone fragment and skeletal remains of once living organisms...and once these remains are "put together" and it even remotely resembles an animal living today; evolution!!

You are just making my point for me here. The fossil record is only one facet. There is a much more compelling branch of science that confirms what was thought based on the fossil record. I'm not sure if you don't know what that is or are ignoring it.

Isn't that how it goes? I mean, I know us religious folks aren't as bright as you naturalists are, but we will do our best to try to follow along you guys here.

No one is claiming religious folks aren't bright. In fact I'd wager a number of very bright religious folks are well aware of the latest science that backs up the current view of evolution and they either accept it and practice a religion that doesn't fall apart based on new science or they cling to faith and ignore the science.

Honestly I'm quite baffled by the religious who ignore science. If I was still religious, I would assume science was just a way of continually learning about the wonderful things my favorite deity has created. However, I understand that some are not willing to update their religious beliefs and are boxed in by holy texts.

[brunumb]

Honestly I'm quite baffled by the religious who ignore science. If I was still religious, I would assume science was just a way of continually learning about the wonderful things my favorite deity has created. However, I understand that some are not willing to update their religious beliefs and are boxed in by holy texts.

The risk of missing out on eternal life or burning in hell forever can impose undue influence in that regard. I can understand how hard it could be for those with deeply inculcated beliefs. Intelligence is not an issue when the emotions start to take over.

[Aetixintro]

[Replying to brunumb in post #154]

1. God is truth and to investigate the nature in order to reveal truth therefore seems to be a religious imperative. Religious people do not only look to the Bible afterall because they're interested in making a better World, to exploit God's way in nature.

2. Every significant fossil seems to have a very special Freak nature, criminal history involving the Morphology of children (see Darwin's last chapter in the Origin of Species) so what are we supposed to believe? If every significant fossil has a perverse, criminal history involving children in particular! Come on! Then Darwin's Theory of Evolution isn't science, it is outright FRAUD!

No! Once I believed in Theory of Evolution. Now I have huge doubts in it! It may be science fraud altogether. Sorry!

[Miles]

[Replying to brunumb in post #154]

1. God is truth

Especially when he's condoning slavery, demanding that practicing gays be put to death, and dashing little ones against rocks. I'm presume you do go along with these. Yes?

and to investigate the nature in order to reveal truth therefore seems to be a religious imperative.

One would hope so, but I'm curious as to why this seems to be an imperative. After all, too much of what Christians believe about nature goes against science's knowledge of it.

2. Every significant fossil seems to have a very special Freak nature, criminal history involving the Morphology of children (see Darwin's last chapter in the Origin of Species) so what are we supposed to believe? If every significant fossil has a perverse, criminal history involving children in particular! Come on! Then Darwin's Theory of Evolution isn't science, it is outright FRAUD!

Whaaaaat? How does a fossil have a "criminal history involving the Morphology of children"?



.

[We_Are_VENOM]

You are just making my point for me here. The fossil record is only one facet.

Sure, but it is the main facet. Walk up to any person (evolutionist) on the street and ask him/her what is the evidence for evolution, and I guarandamntee the fossil record will be the first thing mentioned.

There is a much more compelling branch of science that confirms what was thought based on the fossil record. I'm not sure if you don't know what that is or are ignoring it.

The question is, does this so called "compelling" evidence mean what you think it means?

No one is claiming religious folks aren't bright. In fact I'd wager a number of very bright religious folks are well aware of the latest science that backs up the current view of evolution and they either accept it and practice a religion that doesn't fall apart based on new science or they cling to faith and ignore the science.

But no one is ignoring the science...we just understand the fact that science isn't the end all/be all of knowledge, which is contrary to our naturalist counterparts.

Honestly I'm quite baffled by the religious who ignore science. If I was still religious, I would assume science was just a way of continually learning about the wonderful things my favorite deity has created. However, I understand that some are not willing to update their religious beliefs and are boxed in by holy texts.

Assuming that evolution is science, which it isn't. Science is based on observation, experimentation, and prediction.

You've never observed any reptile-bird type of transformation in nature. You've never conducted an experiment which would lead you to such results..and you cannot adequately make any predictions based on the aforementioned observation and experiment that will lead you to those macro-level changes in the future.

So basically, you aren't doing science. You are relying on faith...the unseen. That is about as religious as the coming Rapture.

[benchwarmer]

You are just making my point for me here. The fossil record is only one facet.

Sure, but it is the main facet. Walk up to any person (evolutionist) on the street and ask him/her what is the evidence for evolution, and I guarandamntee the fossil record will be the first thing mentioned.

Well, you just lost your bet. If you walked up to me it would NOT be the first thing I mentioned. You still haven't mentioned it so I assume you are unaware of it or are ignoring it. I'm not doing your homework for you.

There is a much more compelling branch of science that confirms what was thought based on the fossil record. I'm not sure if you don't know what that is or are ignoring it.

The question is, does this so called "compelling" evidence mean what you think it means?

It means exactly what it is observable.

No one is claiming religious folks aren't bright. In fact I'd wager a number of very bright religious folks are well aware of the latest science that backs up the current view of evolution and they either accept it and practice a religion that doesn't fall apart based on new science or they cling to faith and ignore the science.

But no one is ignoring the science...we just understand the fact that science isn't the end all/be all of knowledge, which is contrary to our naturalist counterparts.

Well, it is the end all/be all of what we can observe and test for. That's the whole point. Science doesn't make stuff up based on holy texts. It's a method for testing claims based on observable, repeatable observation.

Honestly I'm quite baffled by the religious who ignore science. If I was still religious, I would assume science was just a way of continually learning about the wonderful things my favorite deity has created. However, I understand that some are not willing to update their religious beliefs and are boxed in by holy texts.

Assuming that evolution is science, which it isn't. Science is based on observation, experimentation, and prediction.

That's like me saying "Assuming Christianity is a religion, which it isn't". Clearly false. At least your second sentence is correct.

You've never observed any reptile-bird type of transformation in nature. You've never conducted an experiment which would lead you to such results..and you cannot adequately make any predictions based on the aforementioned observation and experiment that will lead you to those macro-level changes in the future.

So basically, you aren't doing science. You are relying on faith...the unseen. That is about as religious as the coming Rapture.

Please quote the Theory of Evolution and highlight the part that says an observation of a "reptile-bird type of transformation in nature" is required. We'll wait.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Well, you just lost your bet. If you walked up to me it would NOT be the first thing I mentioned. You still haven't mentioned it so I assume you are unaware of it or are ignoring it. I'm not doing your homework for you.

It's ok, I don't expect you to admit it.

It means exactly what it is observable.

What I observe is; dogs producing dogs, cats/cats, fish/fish. I don't see any compelling evidence to suggest that things were any different 100000000000 years ago...and I also don't see any evidence to suggest that things will be any different 100000000000 years from now.

In fact, the whole "timetable" thing is all part of the scam, the con.

If you notice, no matter where you are in history, you will either be told that you missed the changes ("sorry, Charlie, had you'd been here x amount of years ago, you would have seen it"), or you will be told that you have to wait for it ("but hey, if you wait another x amount of years, you will see it").

No matter where you are in history on the timeline, you will be told either of those two things.

And you don't see the scam in any of that? Wowww.

Well, it is the end all/be all of what we can observe and test for. That's the whole point. Science doesn't make stuff up based on holy texts. It's a method for testing claims based on observable, repeatable observation.

Well, my claim is that dogs produce dogs, cats/cats, fish/fish. That is a claim, isn't it?

Lets test this claim; get million different dogs, cats, and fish. And have them mate with their own kind...and based on repeatable observation, we will see dogs producing more dogs, cats producing more cats, etc.

That, my friend, is science. Observation, experiment, and prediction...which is why no one is arguing against microevolution, which is you know, actual science.

That's like me saying "Assuming Christianity is a religion, which it isn't". Clearly false.

Yeah, but then I would ask you if you can articulate why Christianity doesn't constitute as a religion and I sincerely doubt you would be able to do that.

However, I can articulate why macroevolution doesn't constitute as "science"...and it looks to me as if I already did.

Please quote the Theory of Evolution and highlight the part that says an observation of a "reptile-bird type of transformation in nature" is required. We'll wait.

First off, if it happened in nature, it can be observed in nature.

Second, I want evidence that such a transformation is even possible, let alone observed. I am under the impression that it isn't even naturally possible for a reptile to evolve into a bird.

And if it isn't possible, it certainly can't be observed.

So here, I am making it even easier for you...just demonstrate the mere possibility of it happening...and I will become an evolutionist.

[The Barbarian]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #145]

My understanding of the theory is basically what the theory says; a reptile evolved into a bird, and that whales were once land dwelling animals.

Not buying it. Not on naturalism. Nope.

Comes down to evidence. And it's overwhelming that birds evolved from dinosaurs. This was first predicted by Huxley, based on anatomical data. Only much later did scientists find the transitional species between dinosaurs and birds. But that only part of the confirmation.

We have now found that many "avian" characteristics are really found in dinosaurs, such as pneumatized bones (the formerly thought to be unique "avian" respiratiory system), feathers, etc.

Likewise, scienists , looking at the anatomical features of whales, realized that they seem to have evolved from hoofed mammals. Only much later, did scientists find many transitional forms between hoofed mammals and whales. Even more compelling, genetics shows the relationship...

More DNA support for a Cetacea/Hippopotamidae clade: the blood-clotting protein gene gamma-fibrinogen.
J Gatesy
Molecular Biology and Evolution, Volume 14, Issue 5, May 1997
https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/14/5/537/994975

[We_Are_VENOM]

Comes down to evidence. And it's overwhelming that birds evolved from dinosaurs. This was first predicted by Huxley, based on anatomical data.

Huxley started with a presupposition, which was that evolution is true. Therefore, any paleontolocal (new word) finding would have only lead him to such an interpretation of the data.

So basically; "because fossil X and fossil Y has similar bone structures, therefore, one evolved into the other".

That is a text book example of a non sequitur...which is why the so called "fossil record" is poor evidence for evolution.

Only much later did scientists find the transitional species between dinosaurs and birds. But that only part of the confirmation.

That is nonsense. I assume you are talking about archaeopteryx, which is no transitional species between dinosaurs and birds. Maybe, just maybe, the archaeopteryx was an ancient bird that had teeth..which would be a confirmation that some ancient birds had teeth, NOT that it evolved from a reptilian predecessor.

We have now found that many "avian" characteristics are really found in dinosaurs, such as pneumatized bones (the formerly thought to be unique "avian" respiratiory system), feathers, etc.

Nonsense. You don't start with scales and end up with feathers. It ain't happening. There are just too many bodily differences between reptiles and birds which would make evolution from one to the other biologically impossible...the lungs are different, the hearts are different, the eggs are different.

Likewise, scienists , looking at the anatomical features of whales, realized that they seem to have evolved from hoofed mammals.

Amazing. Whales don't currently have hoofs, so how in the world are you going to draw the conclusion that a land dwelling hoofed animal is somehow related to a hoofless, sea dwelling animal?

This only makes sense to someone who already believes in the theory. No way are you going to draw such conclusion without a specific agenda to push.

Only much later, did scientists find many transitional forms between hoofed mammals and whales. Even more compelling, genetics shows the relationship...

All mankind is made up of the same "stuff". Warships and forks are made up of the same metal, but that doesn't prove that they evolved from a tin can. It proves that intelligent designers used the same "stuff" to make different creations.